Taiwan is often compared to other countries, but never to Spain.
Yet the two countries have, in many ways, followed a similar path toward democracy. That makes the comparison interesting.
Both nations face a paradox: They successfully abolished dictatorship without erasing the illegality of the regime that preceded them. There was no revolution. No tyrant was toppled. No legitimate government in exile came back. They were reformed from the inside, and the people rolled with it, because, when you are finally free from oppression, technicalities matter little.
Let us break down the facts.
The elected, democratically legitimate government of the Spanish Republic was overthrown in 1939, when the Nationalist rebels of Francisco Franco declared victory. Taiwan was handed over to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) of Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) in 1945, and he asserted his power through force against the Taiwanese population. Both regimes received international diplomatic recognition.
Toward the end of his rule in 1969, Franco co-opted the heir of the former Spanish monarchy, Juan Carlos, as his designated successor. In Taiwan, Chiang’s son, former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), who had inherited the presidency, put Taiwan-born Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) first in the line of succession by appointing him vice president in 1984.
In both cases, the authoritarian ruler died, and the successor automatically inherited extensive powers: in 1975 for Juan Carlos (now king) and in 1988 for Lee.
In both cases, they relinquished those powers in favor of democracy, when they could easily have carried on as dictators.
Juan Carlos presided over the reforms that made Spain into the parliamentary democracy it is today. Lee put an end to the KMT’s dictatorship and called for elections. Both were praised for allowing their countries to embrace human rights and freedom without bloodshed.
However, both also came from within the authoritarian regimes that had buried these values for decades.
Taiwan and Spain share a lack of rupture between the oppressive regime and its democratic successor. Both still use the flag once associated with dictatorship.
The Spanish and Taiwanese enjoy freedom and human rights, and on a practical level, that is more important than symbolic correctness. However, it also means carrying a legacy of silence and real difficulty when it comes to transitional justice.
Juan Carlos and Lee navigated dangerous environments. They worked to bring democracy and freedom, but were careful not to provoke the authoritarian elements still in place — elements that could have destroyed the entire project if pushed too far.
We know Lee had to ensure hardliners would not depose him in the early years of his presidency. We saw Spain face a coup attempt in 1981, when old Francoists stormed the Spanish parliament. Juan Carlos and Lee could have been murdered by nostalgia-driven apparatchiks. They were not entirely free to do what they wanted.
However, both countries are now free. For most people, that is what matters.
However, those with personal scars are still grieving, and both countries still struggle with the weight of that legacy. Spain has its “pact of forgetting.” Taiwan is notorious for the difficulty it encounters in navigating transitional justice.
So, what to make of it?
The comparison has its limits. For one, Spain is not threatened by an external power. However, a country does not need to be entirely similar to Taiwan to offer meaningful perspective.
The point of this piece is not to offer a full-fledged analysis of what Taiwan can learn from Spain. That would require its own feature and a much more exhaustive investigation.
Rather, it is to remind readers that Taiwan should not be viewed in isolation. We too often make two mistakes: One is to compare Taiwan only to the usual cases (other Asian countries, or nations shaped by Cold War legacies); the other is to assume that Taiwan’s problems are unique and that no other country can offer inspiration.
Thinking outside the box is more fruitful. Many countries, including some that seem very different at first glance, have undergone similar transitions that can help enrich Taiwan’s ongoing democratic debate. If Taiwan needs anything today, it is precisely that: a broader, more global mindset.
Julien Oeuillet is a journalist in Taiwan. He is the founding editor of Indo-Pacific Open News. He also writes and produces radio and television programs for several English-language publications globally.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
RSS